ML20195K292
| ML20195K292 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/24/1998 |
| From: | Cool D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Lipoti J NEW JERSEY, STATE OF |
| References | |
| SSD, NUDOCS 9811250221 | |
| Download: ML20195K292 (6) | |
Text
.
C'%
{
y -
4 UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Pr WASHINGTON, D.C. 205554)o01
.\\ %,./
November 24, 1998 Jill Lipoti, Ph. D., Assistant Director Division of Environmental Safety, Health and Analytical Programs Radiation Protection Programs The Department of Environmental Protection State of New Jersey P.O. Box 415 Trenton, NJ 08625-0415
Dear Dr. Lipoti:
Thank you for your letter of January 16,1998, transmitting information and documents concerning accidents involving damaged exit signs, associated high decontamination costs, and lapses in accountability of devices distributed by two separate licensees in your State. We share your concern and believe that some licensees need to be reminded of their licensing commitments through enhanced oversight and control.
As you know, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) traditionally has had little contact with generallicensees. The NRC staff believes that this is why many generallicensees are not aware of their responsibilities under a generallicense and that this results in incidents of mishandling and improper disposition of generally licensed devices. This in turn, has resulted in radiation exposure to the public and in some cases, has entailed expensive investigations, cleanup and disposal activities. In most instances, the exposure to the public has not been significant.
However, these exposures would not have occurred if the devices were properly handled and disposed of. Consistent with SRM-SECY-98-199 Proposed Rule: 10 CFR Part 31
.. Requirement for Those Who Possess Certain Industria! Devices Containing Byproduct Materials to Provide Requested Information" the Staff is moving forward to design a registration system for the highest risk generally licensed devices.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as smended, authorizes the NRC to request appropriate in'ormation from it's licensee concerning licensed activities. However, the Commission has not included sucn explicit provisions in the regulation governing general licensees in 10 CFR 31.5.
Although 10 CFR 2.204,30.34(e) and 30.61(a) require information from licensees by order or l
demand, these provisions are not considered appropriate for the initiation of a routine registration program. Therefore, efforts are underway, through rule making, to establish a regulatory basis for initiating a registration program designed to enhance the NRC's ability to seek informational responses from general licensees and increased responsibility as regards accountability and control of generally licensed devices. This effort will be achieved through two separate but related rulemakings.
The first rule will enable NRC to request information from certain general licensees to provide the regulatory basis for the initiation of a registration program. However, in this first effort, the selection criteria, developed by the NRC-Agreement States Working Group, will exclude the radioactive (H-3) self illuminating exit signs. As a result, efforts and resources will be I
concentrated on those radioactive devices that present the greatest risk to the general public.
9811250221 981124 PDR RC w
SSD PDR
Jill Lipoti, Ph.D.
2 l'
Work on a second and more comprehensive rule is proceeding on a fast-track schedule. This l
rule will consider other aspects of the NRC-Agreement State Working Group recommendations, in i
particular, revisions to reporting, record keeping, and labeling requirements for vendors and fees for registration of generally licensed devices, as well as some additionalissues identified by the NRC staff. It will also establish the level of compatibility for Agreement State regulations with regard to the additional requirements in this area. This rulemaking will include some provisions applicable to a much broader range of devices, including exit signs. While this rulemaking will not require general licensees to register exit signs, it will require distributing licensees to report serial numbers to NRC and/or Agreement States, in addition device distributors would also be required to provide the name and phone number for a designated person to be responsible for complying with the regulations in place of just a contact person as is the current practice. However, these broader provisions will primanly improve accountability of devices distributed in the future. In so developing the more comprehensive rule, the staff is making efforts to work with the States as much as possible to develop a cost-effective nationwide program to improve control and accountability of generally licensei devices.
There are a number of avenues being explored to involve the States in developing and implementing this rule. This includes participation by you and your staff as well as an Agreement State representative on the working group to develop the rule. As a part of this effort, the draft rule was discussed at all Agreement State meeting held on October 30,1998. We would like to express our gratitude, for the valueble work of your staff in providing specific comments and suggestions regarding potential design improvements related to exit signs. Our responses to your comments and suggestions, listed in your !ctier dated January 16,1998, are enclosed.
Thank you for sharing your concerns and thoughts. If you have any questions regarding the responses please feel free to contact Ujagar S. Bhachu of my staff at (301)415-7894.
Sine rely Do a A. Cool, Director Division of industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated.
cc. Richard Bangart, Office of State Programs l
Hubert Miller, Region 1, NRC Dave Chawaga, SLO, Region 1, NRC Rita Aldrich, Department of Labor, NY l
Distribution: MNS-6020 NRC Central foe NMSS r/f IMNS r/f, WM-88 _
i
^
DOCUMENT NAME: A:\\LOPOTTlF.WPD r - copy *,ta.it.Mbn'v nciou.
- 1.,.ce
. copy.m. dxuman, went. w th. har c. copy wnhout ettaenm ne.nciou.
v - No copy OFFICE MSB C
MSB C
MSB C
IMNS s d l
NAME USBhachu U$
CRaddatz LWCamper DCooI* ' ~
5 DATE November 17,1998 November 17,1998 November 17,1998 y/u m OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
e 1
4 2
There are a number of avenues being explored to involve the States in developing and implementing this rule. This includes participation by you and your staff as well as an Agreement State representative on the working group to develop the rule. The draft rule was discussed at all Agreement State meeting held on October 30,1998.
Thank you for sharing your concerns and thoughts. if you have any questions regarding the responses please feel free to contact Ujagar S. Bhachu of my staff at (301)415-7894.
1 Sincerely, Donald A. Cool, Director Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety j
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
cc. Richard Bangert, Office of State Programs Hubert Miller, Region 1, NRC Dave Chawaga, SLO, Region 1, NRC Rita Aldrich, Department of Labor, NY Enclosed: Attachment #1.
Distribution: IMNS-6020 NRC Central File IMNS r/f NEO2-SSD2 O
DOCUMENT NAME: P:\\LOPOTTIC.WPD r
n r.cm..
,y of ini. docum.nt. indic.t. in in. bo.: c - copy witnout tt.cnm.nt/.ncio.u,
-witn.tt.cnment/.nclosur.
'N' = No copy OFFICE MSBe C MSB lC MSB #
C IMNS j
m NAME USBhachu CRaddatz LWCamperLV-$/4DCool DATE November 3,1998 November 3,1998 November 3,1998 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
4 Responses to Dr. Jill Lopoti's Comments Listed in Letter Dated January 18,1998.
We appreciate your suggestions to resolve some of the problems related to exit signs and we respond to each item of your letter as follows:
Comment:
The Safety Analysis Summaries should not only provide the information listed in NUREG-1556 Vol. 3, but should also provide useful information to regulating agencies and end users as to range of exposures that can be expected under accident and normal conditions. Safety Analysis Summaries for similar devices should be performed in similar fashion using similar assumptions which should be clearly stated in the evaluation. After reviewing safety analysis summaries for two exit signs, one of the Safety Light Corporation exit signs (NR-579-D-107-G) dated 08-18-86 and, one for Self-Powered Lighting, Inc. exit signs (NY-594-D-103-G) dated 5-20-88, there is a difference in anticipated whole body dose of a factor of approximately 1,000. This discrepancy between two similar devices is because the analyses are based on different assumptions.
Response
We agree that the assumptions should be clearly and concisely stated in the evaluation. Steps are being taken to provide training to streamline and standardize the review process of the Registration Certificate. Some of these issues were addressed in an SSD Training Workshop held, at NRC-HQ, during the week starting August 23,1998.
We have examined your concern regarding variances in the anticipated whole body dose of similar products analyzed by two different manufacturers and evaluated by NRC and the State of New York. Based on the limits stated in the registration certificates your observations are numerically correct. One certificate stated the allowed doses and the other certificate stated the actual doses, in both cases, the doses were well within the regulatory limits. A detailed review of the available supporting documents and bearing in mind the source sizes in each case, leads us to the opinion that the variance falls within the envelope of the design configuration, materials of construction utilized and the postulation of the accident conditions by each manufacturer to reflect the number of tubes used in their design.
Comment:
Sales literature on all generally licensed devices should not only state the benefits of the product, but should also state that device contains radioactive material and that when you purchase the device, you become a general licensee with certain rights and responsibilities. Informing potential customers of their responsibilities prior to their purchasing the generally licensed device may deter some from making the purchase, but it is better that they know what they are committing to up front.
Enclosure
P l
b i
i l
2 i
Response
There will always be some manufacturers and distributors who will use j
marketing tools and strategies to overly project the positive aspects of their products while tending to remain silent on negative attributes. Like you, we do not condone such practices.
NRC is preparing a letter to the primary manufacturers of the exit signs
~
requesting them to be more accurate and clear in their marketing efforts associated with the exit signs.
Comment:
Use of such signs should be limited to appropriate situations and not allowed simply to avoid cost of running electricalwiring. The NRC should issue guidance on inappropriate conditions for use such as those of a prison or mental facility where violent individuals may be present. Also, it might be l
beneficial to require that they be placed at specified minimum height to make it
)
harder to access thern.
i
Response
These types of exit signs have been distributed for decades. Because of their size, mobility, places of use, and wide spread distribution, they are and will be involved in accidents originating from installations, mishandling, storage and willfulintent. As you know, under normal conditions of operation and postulated accident conditions, the exit signs pose no significant radiation exposure nazard to the building occupants. It is prudent to use these devices properly which may require developing and implementing procedures which ensure that these devices are functioning properly and are handled in a safe manner. This issue will be considered as a part of the rulemaking process.
l Comment:
The " Acceptable Surface Contamination Levels" listed in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.86 for H-3 and other radionuclides should be reviewed and revised l
based on the health risk.
I
Response
Regulatory Guide 1.86 was not intended to be risk based. Efforts are under way to review the acceptability of the approach and to derive alternative risk based release limits for all radionuclides.
Comment:
In researching these signs, our staff has some ideas for redesign. If a manufacturer is interested, please pass along the following ideas:
l The low energy beta particle presents unique physical problems for its use as well as its detection. However, if H-3 could be mixed with phosphor, it could be detected if the tube is broken through the use of an ultra violet light source. This could expedite its detection.
a If the H-3/ phosphor could be solidified and incorporated into a solid piece of plexiglass or plastic, a damaged sign could be detected with UV light and also the radiological impact would minimized since the low energy beta from H-3 with in the solid matrix would not be able to penetrate through the solid.
Enclosure
r i
3
Response
Your suggestion regarding design improvement, H-3/ phosphor solidification into the plexiglass or plastic has merit. It is our understanding that Department of Energy has done a considerable amount of design and development work along the lines yoe suggested. Unfortunately DOE terminated this project due to lack of funds.
As you may be aware, Atomic Energy Act limits NRC as a promoter of uses of byproduct materia ls. It is not NRC'S role to suggest design enhancements to the manufacturers. We suggest that an article in an appropriate journal and/or news paper might be an alternative route that the State might explore.
i l
l Enclosure
,